The hard thing in making the list is trying accurately assess those players who are still in the middle of their careers, like Alex Rodriguez and Shaq. I mean, it seems pretty obvious that ultimately A-Rod will be considered a much better player than Cal Ripken, but it's hard to compare a complete story to only a segment. Plus there's the whole MVP-like argument over greatest athlete vs greatest sports figure, say.
That being said, my list:
1. Martina Navratilova
2. Michael Jordan
3. Wayne Gretzky
4. Lance Armstrong
5. Tiger Woods
6. Jerry Rice
7. Mike Tyson
8. Barry Bonds
9. Joe Montana
10. Carl Lewis
One more thing about Gretzky: he didn't UNretire. That alone helps put him over the top. [And neither did Montana or Sanders.]
Why Wayne Gretzky beats Lance Armstrong-
http://www.nhl.com/hockeyu/history/gretzky/61records.html
Here's my list of the Top 25 athletes:
1. Wayne Gretzky
2. Martina Navratilova (Ranked through 4 different decades, first woman in sports history to earn $1,000.000 in a year, gazillion singles and doubles titles)
3. Barry Bonds
4. Michael Jordan
5. Joe Montana
6. Carl Lewis (damn, that man can RUN)
7. Lance Armstrong (coming back after cancer- now that's an athlete)
8. Mario Lemieux
9. Magic Johnson
10.Tiger Woods (he'd rank higher, but he's such an asshole I can't bear to do it)
Great call on Lance Armstrong not being on the list. He's managed to do something somebody hasn't done since about 1994 (Miguel Indurain). I respect the fact he overcame cancer and I certainly think he's the top cyclist in the world today, but his achievements boil down to winning one race for five consecutive years.
Two questions: Why is this a list of "North American all-time"? If this is a list of "North American All-time" what is a Czechoslovakian-born athlete (Navratilova) doing on it?
The short-sightedness of the USA sporting community is staggering. Is there any sports fan out there who truly believes Pele doesn't belong with Magic Johnson, Wayne Gretzky, Barry Sanders and Barry Bonds?
Pele didn't accomplish as much from 1979-2004 as the 10 I mentioned.
Martina defected to the United States in 1975 and became an American citizen in 1981. For the record, her 1978-79 Wimbledon championships were won by Martina as a Czechoslovakian, despite her prior defection, while her 1982-87 & 1990 titles were credited for the U.S.
And this is probably a bit convoluted, but I think it sums up her longevity that Navratilova has apparently managed to outlast the #1-ranked player who was named after her (Martina Hingis).
Kinda off topic... but it's a shame Bo Jackson blew out his hip... I never saw a greater athlete...
Paul,
So now the list is the "North-American all-time athletes from 1979-2004"? Thats narrowing your scope a bit, don't you think?
Look at this: http://www.360soccer.com/pele/
From 1956-1977 Pele dominated both World and Brazilian soccer. From his Club Championships with Sau Paulo, Brazilian and World Cup Championships as an international and his eleven titles as the top league goal-scorer I don't see how you can claim he didn't accomplish as much as the ten you listed.
I just used Pele as an example. I'm sure I could come up with athletes from both rugby and cricket who could match up with the 10 you've listed.
TTman, the list is ESPN's greatest athletes of the last 25 years, because that's how long it has been on TV. Pele is a great athlete, but he didn't accomplish much from 1979-2004. My top 10
1. Wayne Gretzky
2. Michael Jordan
3. Barry Bonds
4t. Steffi Graf
4t. Martina Navratilova
6. Bo Jackson
7. Barry Sanders
8. Carl Lewis
9. Joe Montana
10. Dan Marino
Soccer is barely on America's sports radar. Rugby and cricket not so much. Ignorance? Short-sightedness? Whatever.
I'm tired of insulting, zealous soccer fans who think we don't get it. Trust me, we get it. We don't like it. Decade after decade after decade we don't like it. Sorry.
Paul,
I apologize if my tone comes off as insulting. Quite honestly, I wouldn't call myself a soccer fan at all. I just find that as Americans, we all seem so unaware that there is a world beyond our own shores.
I don't think I've found this ignorance so prominantly embraced as I have in the American sports media. Perhaps you can chalk it up to the general media's constant pandering to the lowest common denominator, but there's something about sports that brings out this side in a lot of people.
I chalk it up to the media giving people what they want. When TV ratings for soccer, cricket rugby and sports played on other shores match those of football, baseball, basketball and hockey, media will do more features on their athletes.
We Kansas Citians know that Joe Montana was the most overrated QB of his day. He had a team, he had people to throw to. By the time Montana was released by San Fransico and he made it to KC so he could prove that he still had it, it was obvious that he just didn't have it. Montana, like Jordan, couldn't tell when he should have called it quits.
And though it pains me to say, John Elway should be on that list. Only one ring, but Elway was the quarterback that you just couldn't count on to be down. And he made comeback victories happen pretty much singlehandedly, without a team to throw to and without a line to block for him.
Elway has two rings, back-to-back Super Bowl victories after losing his first three.
TTMan, you're point is well made. I'm sure that there are some deserving athletes in other sports not well-known in North America who should be on that list. But frankly, I'm not sure Paul or any other typical American sports fan is qualified to judge them. I couldn't name one rugby or cricket star. And I don't know enough about soccer to determine if a Beckham or Ronaldo or Zidane should a) be on that list and b) where they should rank if they were on that list. By the same token, the average European sports fan is in the same boat with a Elway, Montana, Rice, and Sanders. They don't know enough about those players to determine if they should be on that list or where to rank them if they were on that list.
Elway got two rings - '98 and '99.
Anyway - about soccer. I too get pissed off at folks who get down on the US for not being as ga-ga over soccer as the rest of the world. I mean-big deal! We like US football, baseball and basketball (with hockey hanging in there at 4th)in this part of the world. Do I get miffed that Brits don't go as nuts over NCAA basketball as I do? Nope. Do I give a crap that Nigerian kids can't give me a decent overview of the difference between a safety blitz and Cover 4? Not me. Do my panties get bunched up when a Czech can't give me a good definition of the infield fly rule? Not my panties, no sir.
So why are we Yanks continuously taken to task for not loving soccer as the rest of the world does? Bugs me. And shit - we ARE doing better in international soccer and we DO dominate international women's soccer and damned if every white kid under the age of 16 plays soccer the way we used to play Little League - so give it a rest, ok International Community? OK?
But what REALLY bugs me is when some jackass tries to make the tired, lame argument that [FILL IN NAME OF SPORT] is tougher than US Football. Rugby guys LOVE to do this. I refuse to argue this on relative terms, only straight up. And straight up, the scariest, most physically demanding sport to play is US style football. When Rugby begins featuring athletes who are 6'4, 8% body fat, 240 lbs, who can run the 40 yd dash in Olympic level speeds, who can bench press a Volkswagen all the while memorizing a 100 page playbook as well as countless hours of game tape - THEN we can talk about how "tough" Rugby is. Until then its just a bunch of 5'8", 160lb frat boys pushing each other around.
Anyone who leaves Lance off their list has never done a 100 mile day on a bicycle - never mind 20-something 100+ mile days in a row. How can you omit Lance and include even one single baseball player?
I left Lance off because the Tour de France is grueling, and so is the Nathan's hot-dog-eating contest, and I take about five minutes a year to watch and talk about each one.
Paul, I rarely criticize you but- How can you possibly say you make your list based on whether or not you watch a sport? Does your viewing make the athlete? Is it just media awareness that predefines your awareness of "the best"?
It seems awfully egotistical to view sports that way, and even more so to view the athletes that participate in them in such a manner.
This was ESPN's list of 35, of which it invited its readers to choose 25. I think it was short-sighted, even within the confines of its narrow definitions of greatness. Limited to (for the most part) American athletes, and limited to media stars, that list of 35 said far more about the editors of ESPN and their perception of American opinions, than it actually did about the best 25 athletes of the last quarter century.
I don't like soccer, but I can admire the agility and strength of a player like Pele or Beckham; I don't have to like or watch a sport to be aware of the abilities of its participants. If you choose only athletes that you talk about, in sports that you watch, then you are choosing the most popular 25 athletes- not necessarily the best.
Lucy asks, How can you possibly say you make your list based on whether or not you watch a sport?
OK, me and most of America. It's an American sports list, OK? I don't follow Japanese table tennis and Indian cricket and Nigerian soccer.
Henry,
You might want to check out international rugby - they do have players with the physical traits you've listed. This is farely remarkable considering they've only been playing professionally for the last few years. Not one single player tested positive for illegal substances in last years World Cup. How many football players (college and pro) do you think have been on the juice at one point or another? You've obviously never seen a top-tier rugby match here in the U.S. - if you'd have, you'd know they weren't a bunch of "5'8, 160 lbs. frat boys".
U.S. football (where do you think it came from, by the way?) and Rugby require a different kind of fitness - U.S. footballers need exceptional strength for short periods of time - but what about their endurance? How much actual playing time does the average player log? Compare that to a full 80-minute match with only halftime as your break. Footballers may have to memorize a lot of plays as well - and thats certainly not easy. But a rugby match evolves, requiring players to think spontaneously and be creative all under the most extreme pressure.
The scariest, most physically demanding sport? both Rugby and U.S. Football make a pretty good case - but I guess what tips it for me is that I'm still playing rugby at the age of 34. How many guys my age are playing organized U.S. football? If you know any, Henry, tell' em to lose their helmets and pads and pick up a rugby ball - they'll be much happier at the end of the day.
Thanks for the tips about Rugby, TTMan. I'm always gonna be a US Football fan, but I'm semi open minded.
Well, it's a certainly interesting list. Opinions and respective bias will definitely determine who goes and who doesn't. Personally..I'd save Lance does deserve to be on there, but that's just me.
As for soccer...I'm a soccer fanatic at heart. And while I know the majority of Americans aren't...that may seriously change with time. We (the US) are starting to produce some class footballers, especially with the 14 y/o phenomenon Frankie Adu who will help turn American soccer in the right direction. Anyway, I know he isn't on your list, but Magic Johnson attended a Champions League (Internationally most prized tournament) soccer match in the not to recent past, and after said that Zinidine Zidane (Real Madrid player...and France native)has the talent of him and Michael Jordan combined...doesn't prove anything, but interesting nonetheless.
Anyway, just my 2 cents. Cheers
Here is my top 10
1. Jerry Rice
2. Wayne Gretzky
3. Michael Jordan
4. Roy Jones Jr. - not on espn's list, why?
5. Joe Montana
6. Tiger Woods
7. Carl Lewis
8. "Sugar" Ray Leonard
9. Mario Lemieux
10. Barry Bonds
Why Rice? Of all the players on the list my list he is the only one to bring all the records to a new high and then carry them even further. Playing in a more physical sport makes him the true "ironman", not ripken. He may have been the reason for Montana's continued greatness beyond his 2nd Super Bowl. His records and legacy will never be broken because the great recievers today have shown not to have his consistency or longevity.
rice? come on man. wayne gretzky is the most statistically dominant player in this history of organized sport.
total records held:
rice - 34
gretzky - 61
gretzky not only owns or shares _every_single_ offensive record in hockey, but has also shattered most of them. his single-season points record of 215 has been likened by experts to a baseball player hitting 90 home runs in one season or an NFL back rushing for 3,000 yards. the current NFL single-season rushing record is 2,100 yards.
has more mvp nods than any other player in the history of sports: 9.
gretzky has more assists than any other player has points (assists + goals). if you took away _all_ his goals, he would still have more points than anyone in history.
only one of his records has been broken: youngest player to score a goal in an all-star game.
in all the cliche of "unbreakable" records, gretzky is considered to have one of the toughest. 50 goals in 39 games. only two other humans have come close: maurice richard and mike bossy with 50 goals in 50 games. players who score 50 goals in an entire season are considered elite, while a good player scores around 20-30. gretzky's single-season goals record stands at 92.
my personal favorite record is: one year gretzky managed to score 376 goals in an 82 game season (that's an average of about 4.5 goals per game)...when he was 10 years old :)
the only people who rank in the same stratosphere as gretzky are babe ruth and jim thorpe.
My Top 10:
1) Wayne Gretzky
2) Michael Jordan
3) Jerry Rice (The fact that a WR is in the discussion speaks for itself)
4) Tiger Woods
5) Carl Lewis
6) Larry Bird
7) Magic Johnson
8) Barry Bonds
9) Joe Montana
10) Walter Payton (too bad this argument is for 1979 and after otherwise "Sweetness" would be around #5)
how come there is no edwin moses.
pele (football)
sobers (cricket)
bradman (cricket)
gretzky (ice hockey)
navratilova (lawn tennis)
edwards (rugby)
maradona (football)
edwin moses (track and field) (usa)
conacher (football, ice hockey, baseball, boxing, lacrosse)
borg (lawn tennis)
tretiak (ice hockey)
blanco (rugby)
gavaskar (cricket)
lemieux (ice hockey)
gagnon (speed skating)
michael jordan (basketball) (usa)
klassen (speed skating)
mark spitz (swimming) (usa)
The hard thing in making the list is trying accurately assess those players who are still in the middle of their careers, like Alex Rodriguez and Shaq. I mean, it seems pretty obvious that ultimately A-Rod will be considered a much better player than Cal Ripken, but it's hard to compare a complete story to only a segment. Plus there's the whole MVP-like argument over greatest athlete vs greatest sports figure, say.
That being said, my list:
Posted by Ken Goldstein at January 17, 2004 10:04 PM1. Martina Navratilova
2. Michael Jordan
3. Wayne Gretzky
4. Lance Armstrong
5. Tiger Woods
6. Jerry Rice
7. Mike Tyson
8. Barry Bonds
9. Joe Montana
10. Carl Lewis